Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Cosand reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Warned)

Page: Sex club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cosand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrOllie (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Warned. Cosand continues to add mentions of sex clubs that are sourced only to their own web sites. He restores these after others remove them. If he continues to revert war, and to add material that has no reliable sources, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

Pages: Lega Nord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The People of Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Five Star Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Future and Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Italy of Values (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Left Ecology Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democratic Party (Italy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nick.mon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nick.mon engages in long-term edit wars on several articles of Italian political parties. He/she does not breach the three-revert rule in 24 hours, but over a longer period (since July). The sheer number of affected articles makes it disruptive. In every article, he/she added the totalized number of seats of the respective party in all Italian regional councils together (without disclosing a source!) to the infobox, and keeps reverting to his/her version of the respective article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Comments:

• Note. I can see similar edits by Nick across many articles. I can see repeated edit-warring warnings by you on Nick's talk page. I can see that Nick doesn't edit talk pages, his own, or anywhere else. All that said, can you point me to a place where you attempted to discuss the problem with him but he failed to respond?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet. User:Checco has given explanations for his edits in his edit summaries which Nick.mon obviously ignored. I didn't really know how to start a discussion with this user. Unfortunately, Checco edit-wars as well, instead of trying to discuss.--RJFF (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the edits are similar across multiple pages, I suggest doing it on the user's talk page as a separate section (just so it doesn't get buried among templates and other comments).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point a fact. I'm not an edit-warrior at all. I have been a respected editor of en.Wiki since January 2006 and, during the years, I have become the main editor on Italian political parties. I have contributed to virtually every article on the subject. I always give explanation for my edits. Nick.mon never does that, thus it is difficult not to consider him just a vandal. Despite this, I always appreciate the good part of his contributions and I'm certain of his/her good faith. I'm a cooperative guy. It is true that I've never discussed with Nick.mon in talk pages, but, as I'm very busy in real life, I haven't seen the point of doing that so far with an user who constantly ignores edit summaries and what other users write in his/her talk page. I will do it this time. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Where are we on this, everyone? I can see that RJFF opened up a discussion on one of the article's talk pages and then invited Nick to participate (thanks!). Nick made a brief comment, seeming to agree, but then edited something and was reverted. Did he back off on his agreement or what? What are everyone's positions on the subsequent edit?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Scrosby85 reported by User:Taivo (Result: No action)

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Croatian language is subject to WP:1RR per WP:ARBMAC
User being reported: Scrosby85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments User:Scrosby85 threatened further edit warring here. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes ok i don't know how many times i can revert and stuff like this..i reverted it maybe 2 or 3 times and Taivo reported me...I don't want to have a big discussion about that theme so i will try to be more calm and talk about it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrosby85 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that Scrosby85 has been made aware of his violation of Wikipedia edit warring rules, the appropriate response from him would be to self-revert his last reversion and then try to build a consensus on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Scrosby85 has apparently taken heed of the warnings and has not continued to revert the article. Someone else has already reverted his last change. We assume he will wait for consensus before making any further edits of this kind. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:193.233.212.18 reported by User:Chetvorno (Result: 48h)

Page: Pendulum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.233.212.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]
• 6th revert: [20]
• 7th revert: [21]
• 8th revert: [22]
• 9th revert: [23]
• 10th revert: [24]
• 11th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27] Complete discussion is here]

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous case [28] The case was resolved by semi-protecting the page. However, as soon as the page protection was lifted, the editor reverted again (9th revert above). User:193.233.212.18 hasn't shown much knowlege of or interest in WP standards; he hasn't responded much to efforts to discuss the situation with him, doesn't sign his posts, has violated the 3RR, and has said edit-warring is OK --Chetvorno^TALK 18:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been related activity at Pendulum (mathematics), see e.g. [29], [30]. Currently there is no edit warring there since the editors opposing User:193.233.212.18 have agreed to leave the contested phrasing alone while it is discussed on the article's talk page. That discussion did not reach a conclusion yet. — HHHIPPO 19:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in that case the issue is only a few adjectives. 193.233.212.18 insists that his additions to the article not be modified in any way. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Although no conculsion has been reached, all editors apart from User:193.233.212.18 are agreed that given the target reasdership of this article, the formula proposed by User:193.233.212.18 is not appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of an IP editor pushing his own POV regardless of any comment from others. In a comment at DRN the IP editor stated "none of their desperate arguments can withstand a slightest healthy criticism". It does not seem there is anyone supporting his version, so the superiority of his preferred wording exists only in his own mind. This has been going on since August. Since only a single IP has been used, a block seems preferable to renewed semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just want to say I agree with your assessment above. I think the response was appropriate. Thanks. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering the editor's previous behavior, would it be possible to keep this case open for 48 hours until the block expires, so if the edit-warring continues I won't have to start a new case? --Chetvorno^TALK 18:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If the problem restarts after this report is archived, you can simply file a new report and link to this one. Or notify me or any admin who has looked into it previously. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:98.204.126.156 reported by User:Epicadam (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.204.126.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• Previous case history here: [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

This IP user is back and making the same disruptive edits to the same page as before (as shown in the previous report). Not sure what can be done, but help/advice would be appreciated. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 22:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

* Comment This account has only made a single change to the article since September, which was promptly reverted and hasn't been reinstated. I note also that the article doesn't have a recent history of significant levels of vandalism from unregistered or new accounts. As such, there's no need for an admin to intervene at present. Please let me know on my talk page if this account resumes edit warring though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Actually, on further consideration and following examination of this accounts edits, it appears that this is a long-running vandal. I've imposed a 24 hour block to send a message that this isn't acceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:ServantofAllah93 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result:Advisement)

Page: Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: ServantofAllah93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 20:01, 1 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Biography */ Removed unnecessary 'clarification' in parentheses")
2. 21:50, 1 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515526325 by GorgeCustersSabre (talk)")
3. 07:38, 2 October 2012 (edit summary: "you changed his to some, you got rid of 'heavily criticised' when this is truth, you edited formatting mistake (infact now appears as it should), and you changed refuted to challenged; refuted does not necessarily mean it's been done successfully you know")
4. 14:53, 2 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Criticism */")
5. 22:26, 2 October 2012
6. 00:49, 3 October 2012

• Diff of warning: here —Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right this is fair..Yes I undid it two times I think, I got a warning, desisted and then I edited and came up with a much more balanced description...I gave away some of what I wanted, and tried to suit the requests of others. However, they have declared all or nothing for their demands. I rephrased section to make it more palatable to all, however this was promptly undone. Others were simply undoing what I did and I tried to be constructive by striking a balance. Besides, the reversion has made one phrase somewhat weird and clumsy "...for the fact he has brought people to Islam..." - this sounds incomplete and I added the adjective "many" to give it a better flow. I can go on...ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see more than three reverts here, and ServantofAllah93 does seem to have taken stock of the warning and made an attempt to craft compromise language, so I don't think a 3RR block is warranted. However, I recommend that ServantofAllah refrain from editing this article for 24 hours and use the talkpage to try to work out some consensus language. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HOLD ON! That first one has nothing to with this supposed 'edit wars' - I removed a rather unnecessary short statement in parentheses in a completely different place in the article. There was no 'edit wars' over this! This first accusation has been removed, however, for the benefit of not looking like a cover-up here it is in parentheses ( # 20:01, 1 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Biography */ Removed unnecessary 'clarification' in parentheses") ) ServantofAllah93 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of the outcome, you learn from this so hopefully I won't get myself in a situation like this again. Best to stay away from doing any 'un-doings' reversions I guess. If I have cause any trouble, I apologise, though naturally I still protest my innocence.

My bad, I deleted the first one while editing the tool output. I've replaced it now. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I would still like to point out that the first and fourth references are not reversions, therefore I feel the whole claim is baseless, as the three reversion rule has not been exceeded. Anyway, like I said I will be keeping well away from this in future, you just don't get anywhere even doing one reversion.ServantofAllah93 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than debate the technicalities of what's a reversion or not, I'll just repeat my suggestion that this be discussed on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. ServantofAllah has made two more reverts since Brad's recommendation that they not edit the article for 24 hours. I've reverted one of the reversions but am reluctant to block ServantofAllah, only because of Brad's involvement and determinations. However, I will alert Brad to the subsequent history just in case he is not watching this page. (There's been no discussion of the issue on the article talk page.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has responded on his talk page and says that any administrator should feel free to act on the most current information. Since the time Bbb23 posted the above comment I've left ServantofAllah93 a very specific warning not to continue to revert at Zakir Naik. Unless reverting continues after this point, we may be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkonikkara reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: The Perfect Host (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mkonikkara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]
• 5th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:
Editor is removing spoilers from this article as well as Sinister (film). - SudoGhost 18:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:12.153.112.21 (Result: No action)

Page: List of AT&T U-verse channels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40], then [41] twice, then several others

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th
• 5th
• 6th
• 7th
• 8th

Nonanonymous user has pretty straightforwardly reverted, as "vandalism", every edit I've made to the page except for a brief period when the user was unavailable, and avoided any discussion on talk about how to incorporate my edits. Each of my attempts was different, each progressively easier to process and recognize as constructive rather than vandalism, but the undo button was used each time without regard. The rationale was that my info was "incorrect" when it was correct and merely historical; resolution of this content dispute is being stalled by the constant charges of vandalism et al. The 7th revert undoes only minor changes and even some obvious corrections, such as correcting a duplicate 838/1838 to 839/1839 and the spelling of Teleamazonas. The 8th revert undoes nothing more than whitespacing and commenting in some of the disputed text for comparison purposes. User is not considering content at all when pushing the button.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] but user knows about it from long before eg [43] from my talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole page.

Comments:

• Comment This is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action here. The article was AfDed, then deleted, then userfied, and now the userfied copy is up for MfD. Since the mainspace article that was the topic of this AN3 complaint is no longer there, this report can be closed. If any followup is needed it can occur at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:173.70.4.26 reported by User:Novangelis (Result: Semi)

Page: Stuart Pivar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.70.4.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]
• 5th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

Submitted by Novangelis (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• 6th revert: [52] Novangelis (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• 7th revert: [53] Novangelis (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR, and the reverting has to stop. The presence or absence of the Pharyngula quote is at most a question of WP:UNDUE weight. The opinion is properly sourced to the person who holds the opinion. I don't see a BLP argument that would make the IP's reverts immune under WP:BLP. Whether the Pharyngula comment should remain in the article is up to the consensus of editors and is not to be settled by warring. Consider opening a thread at WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• RS/N thread opened. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Italia2006 reported by User:Kingjeff (Result: Declined)

Page: 2012–13 FC Bayern Munich season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Italia2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page: [59]

Comments:
Violated the 3RR rule. Kingjeff (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. The diff of edit warring is supposed to be a warning to the user that they are edit-warring, not the notice of this dicussion. However, the main reason for the decline is the discussion between the two editors on Italia's talk page, which seems constructive by both editors, making a block unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:HowardStrong reported by User:Frood (Result: )

Note: A vast majority (at first glance) seem to be reverts, not all probably are. This has gone on since at least Sunday, there are more reverts than just these. Same goes for the Luke-Jr report below. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HowardStrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

1. 13:02, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515786931 by Luke-Jr (talk) People use the thai baht. Not that sign.")
2. 13:02, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515786016 by Luke-Jr (talk) We agree, except you.")
3. 13:03, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "That is not the commonly used Thai Baht symbol.")
4. 13:06, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "The thai baht symbol used by most merchants.")
5. 13:42, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "cited thai baht")
6. 14:02, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Implementations */ Bitcoind comments")
7. 19:35, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515806980 by Luke-Jr (talk)")
8. 19:38, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Reverting good faith edits")
9. 20:26, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Restoring citation")
10. 20:28, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Prices */ This is no longer true, the prices differences between exchanges are mostly caused by the fees to get the money there and out.")
11. 20:31, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Silk Road */ Returned good faith edit by Luke-Jr")
12. 20:39, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Difficulty */")
13. 21:08, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515857089 by Luke-Jr (talk)")
14. 21:12, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Against consensus. Non-neutral POV")
15. 21:13, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515852102 by HowardStrong (talk)")
16. 21:27, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Again, against consensus. Please talk about it before you edit it again or I am calling in an admin. You obviously have your own selfish agenda.")
17. 21:47, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Removed improper citation")
18. 21:59, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "No clear citation, no clear consensus")

• Note. I've notified the editor of this discussion. There is a discussion about the problem going on at WP:ANI. Consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This was mostly over the abbreviation and symbol. Anyways, it's settled.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that it's "settled". I've left a stern warning on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently Frood's hint about not reverting further wasn't taken, since they are continuing to revert. That's in addition to the four other clear reverts: [61][62][63][64] Their next edit after the last diff was labeled "Undid revision 515852102 by HowardStrong" but it wasn't a revert of this edit. - SudoGhost 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment - Please note your use of singular they here is potentially confusing. While I added in the agreed-upon solution, only HowardStrong has continued the edit war despite the agreement. --Luke-Jr (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Luke-Jr reported by User:Frood (Result: )

Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Luke-Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 13:20, 30 September 2012 (edit summary: "Correct symbol and abbreviation")
2. 16:04, 1 October 2012 (edit summary: "Corrected symbol and abbreviation to consensus again...")
3. 16:07, 1 October 2012 (edit summary: "Provide relevant citation for BTC symbol; Silk Road is not Bitcoin")
4. 12:42, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "No agreement on abbreviation")
5. 12:50, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515553142 by HowardStrong (talk): The B⃦ symbol is not reliant upon any one citation, bitcoin.org is just an example. All major Bitcoin websites use the B⃦")
6. 15:17, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Correct symbols, reverting vandalism")
7. 15:20, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Extralegal uses */ It's illegal, no beating around the bush...")
8. 15:22, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "While it's true that Gavin technically contributes to Bitcoin-Qt, he is more notable as the lead developer of bitcoind")
9. 15:25, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Initial distribution */ Note relevance of mining for this section")
10. 15:40, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Covert "mining" */ Clarify distinction from simple mining")
11. 15:42, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin wallets */ Bitcoin.org is client-independent")
12. 15:44, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin wallets */ Warning about e-wallets")
13. 15:48, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Implementations */ The "Satoshi" codebase is shared between bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt")
14. 15:51, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Bitcoin addresses */ Clarifications")
15. 16:11, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "This is where BTC fits")
16. 16:15, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Silk Road */ Bitcoin is already legal and regulated, Amir seems to just have been reiterating that his exchange is compliant")
17. 21:05, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Attempt to restore corrections reverted by vandal")
18. 21:08, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 515857486 by HowardStrong (talk)")
19. 21:10, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Restore other corrections lost")
20. 21:15, 3 October 2012 (edit summary: "Restoration")

—Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 22:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I've notified the editor of this discussion. There is a discussion about the problem going on at WP:ANI. Consecutive edits do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Most of these are actual corrections, not reverts at all. --Luke-Jr (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: )

Page: Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Little green rosetta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is a report for edit-warring.

• 1st revert: [65] - revert to previous, against mention of uterine environment
• 2nd revert: [66] - revert to previous, against mention of uterine environment again, clearly warring now
• non-revert: [67] - unexplained removal, against passage about gays in relationships
• non-revert: [68] - unexplained tagging, against lede
• 3rd revert: [69] - revert to previous, restoring tags, clearly edit-warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71][72]

Comments:
Simply put, LGR has been trying to impose their will upon this article against the wishes of the other editors. They've carefully stopped just short of crossing the 3RR limit, but also made edits that added tags and removed content. The tags they added did not seem reasonable and no effort was made to open up a new discussion to explain them, which is why I got involved by removing the tags. There was also some discussion on the talk page about the edit that removed content, in which LGR falsely claimed that the material was removed because it was in the lead but not the body.

All told, LGR has made 5 edits to the article in a span of about 12 hours, and each of them was reverted by a different editor. LGR has been blocked for edit-warring before, so I'm certain they are well aware of what's wrong with their behavior. My concern is that they will wait for 24 hours since their first revert and plunge back into edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The third revert was restoring a "lead too long" tag to the article. It was reverted (by the nominator) on the basis that it was "drive-by tagging" and added without an explanation. However, it is self-explanatory, and looking at the article, the lead is rather long - almost 3kb. Having said that, WP:LEADLENGTH suggests three or four paragraphs is fine - this has four lengthy ones. StAnselm (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead is fine. This is a clear, unambiguous, and deliberate example of edit warring by Little green rosetta. According to Scientiom, Little green rosetta is also stalking him. Where's a conservative admin when you need them? Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The first revert was of an arbitrary and unexplained revert by Scientiom, although it's not a revert to a previous version by Scientiom. LGR does appear to be edit-warring, but the two immediate reverts by Scientiom, and the single unjustified revert by the nominator, may also separately constitute edit-warring. (LGR did note the lead was too long in a comment on the talk page. That zhe didn't open a separate section to discuss the tags may be a mistake, but it doesn't mean zhe didn't attempt to open a discussion on the tags.) The reviewer should, in investigating whether SS is also edit warring, determine whether SS's claim that the material removed from the lead was not in the body was really "false". SS has been known to add material to the lead which is a synthesis of material in the body, rather than a summary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Except, the facts show that SS hasn't added anything.[73] LGR deliberately edit warred and reverted multiple editors in a disruptive manner. Where is the topic ban/block? Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • True. SS hasn't added anything this time. However, the fact that he has added material to the lead which is neither sourced nor a fair summary of the body is relevant to his identification as to whether material belongs in the lead is at all justified. I consider a block or topic ban of lgr, SS, and/or Scientiom well within the discretion of the closing admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)